Cambodian Gen Z's Cultural Choices: Rebuttal to Thai Cultural Preference Claims, Emphasizing Proud Tradition Inheritance

A recent article titled “Why Cambodian Gen Z Prefers Thai Culture Over Khmer Tradition?” published by Thai webpage ASEAN Skyline Rising has drawn a sharp rebuttal from Roth Santepheap, a Phnom Penh-based geopolitical analyst. Santepheap argues that the article employs sweeping generalizations and provocative language, demonstrating a condescending attitude towards Cambodia and a limited understanding of history and the ethics of cultural heritage protection. Santepheap contends that young people's attraction to innovation, digital content, music, and entertainment is a global phenomenon, not unique to Cambodia. Khmer youth, he asserts, appreciate foreign creativity while remaining proud of their own cultural identity, citing the continued practice and celebration of classical dance, traditional attire, religious ceremonies, cuisine, hospitality, and the "Khmer smile." Appreciation of another culture, he emphasizes, does not equate to abandoning one's own. Ironically, while some portray Cambodia as borrowing from Thailand, recent developments raise concerns. On July 1, the Office of the Royal Society of Thailand introduced the digital typeface "RST-KHOMTHAI" and published a guide titled “Khom Thai Script.” This initiative promotes the term "Thai Khom," overlooking the historical fact that "Khom" was an exonym used by Siamese and Mon peoples to refer to the Khmer people. Santepheap suggests this contributes to narratives reinterpreting the historical origins of Thai territory, language, and script by presenting Thailand as the inheritor of the "Khom" legacy, which he argues warrants careful scholarly scrutiny. Historical records, supported by archaeology and epigraphy, demonstrate the long-established presence of Khmer civilization from the Funan period onward. The Khmer script emerged in the seventh century from South Asian traditions, with the Thai script developing centuries later through adaptations of earlier Khmer writing. These are established subjects of historical and linguistic research that should be examined through evidence, not nationalist interpretations. Historical revisionism risks confusing future generations and influencing modern digital knowledge systems. Furthermore, serious problems have emerged regarding the representation and attribution of both tangible and intangible cultural heritage, including replicas of Angkor Wat, claims regarding Apsara dance, traditional Khmer attire, and Khmer wedding traditions. Cambodia and Thailand share centuries of interaction and mutual influence. Santepheap concludes that the younger generations of both countries deserve a future founded on mutual respect, not historical distortion or cultural competition. The way forward, he states, lies in respecting historical evidence, recognizing cultural origins, ethical stewardship of heritage, and a genuine commitment to preserving Southeast Asia's diverse cultural legacy for the benefit of all humanity.